Witelson v. Jamaica Estates Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Witelson v. Jamaica Estates Holding Corp.

40 A.D.3d 284, 835 N.Y.S.2d 179

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 8, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 284 (Witelson v. Jamaica Estates Holding Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Witelson v. Jamaica Estates Holding Corp., 40 A.D.3d 284, 835 N.Y.S.2d 179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered October 24, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the cross motion by plaintiffs Witelson and Pitterman for summary judgment against defendants Jamaica Estates Holding and Solomon Holding to foreclose on a mortgage, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Even assuming the cross motion was timely filed, it was properly denied. A prima facie showing to warrant summary judgment foreclosure of a mortgage requires the movant to establish the existence of the mortgage and mortgage note, ownership of the mortgage, and the defendant’s default in payment (Campaign v Barba, 23 AD3d 327 [2005]). These plaintiffs do not have a note, have not demonstrated ownership of the mortgage and have not produced competent evidence of a default. Indeed, their witness was unable to state definitely that these plaintiffs even had an interest in the mortgage on which they sought to foreclose.

We have considered appellants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered October 24, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the cross motion by plaintiffs Witelson and Pitterman for summary judgment against defendants Jamaica Estates Holding and Solomon Holding to foreclose on a mortgage, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Even assuming the cross motion was timely filed, it was properly denied. A prima facie showing to warrant summary judgment foreclosure of a mortgage requires the movant to establish the existence of the mortgage and mortgage note, ownership of the mortgage, and the defendant’s default in payment (Campaign v Barba, 23 AD3d 327 [2005]). These plaintiffs do not have a note, have not demonstrated ownership of the mortgage and have not produced competent evidence of a default. Indeed, their witness was unable to state definitely that these plaintiffs even had an interest in the mortgage on which they sought to foreclose.

We have considered appellants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 284, 835 N.Y.S.2d 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witelson-v-jamaica-estates-holding-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack